creation

menafn.com…

Asian Activities Report for May 23, 2011: Minotaur Exploration Limited (ASX:MEP) Announce The Creation Of Braemar Iron Alliance

Link:
Asian Activities Report for May 23, 2011: Minotaur Exploration Limited (ASX:MEP) Announce The Creation Of Braemar Iron Alliance

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

This is from
Marketwire – Management Changes:

Oracle Vet Rahul Patel Will Enhance GENWI’s Cloud-Based Mobile Presence Creation and Management Platform for Business

Continue here:
Former Oracle VP to Oversee Enterprise Development for GENWI / iSites

Pat Choate: The Back Room Politics of Patent Reform

February 28, 2011

President Obama took a political swing through the Western United States in mid-February and was a guest of Intel and several other Big Tech corporations. On February 18, he went to an Intel facility and spoke with the employees about what his Administration is doing about “Winning the Future.” He could not have chosen a more fitting venue. Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, two brilliant engineers, founded Intel in the summer of 1968. The third employee was Andrew Grove, who served as the corporate manager. Noyce and Moore created innovations in the semiconductor field that led to the creation of an entire industry. Today, that little Silicon Valley start-up has grown into a company that does business in 50 nations and employs almost 80,000 people, half of whom work inside the United States. As President Obama noted, Intel is a dynamic corporate citizen in the communities where it operates, providing education to its workers and assisting in local projects. As a start-up, Intel lacked the capital of competitors such as IBM, Motorola and Japanese manufacturers. What they did possess were unique inventions, patents and the protections provided by the U.S. Constitution – that is, their patent rights and the means to defend them in the federal courts. Amazingly, Intel is among a handful of Big Tech corporations, including IBM and Cisco, which are lobbying the President and Congress to weaken patent laws in a way that will make infringement of the patents owned by others easier and deny to others the same opportunity that they had. These companies use a business model termed “efficient infringement” by which they instruct their engineers to aggressively avoid doing a due diligence test as to whether the technology they are using is patented by others. The goal is to deniability in court whenever they are found to infringe and thus avoid paying the patent owner triple damages as current law provides. The draft legislation that these Big Tech corporations drafted and persuaded the Senate Judiciary Committee to adopt in early February 2011 would make America’s extraordinarily effective patent system more like that of Europe and Japan, which are structurally biased against small companies, entrepreneurs and inventors. Their legislation would grant a patent not to the person who invented the creation but to the first-inventor-to-file the application at the Patent Office. The presumption is that an invention can simultaneously have multiple inventors and the winner is the one who beats the clock and gets the stamp first. In practice, the existing U.S. patent system has no such problem determining who merits the patent. Of the more than 500,000 patent applications filed last year, there were only 47 contested patents as to who was the inventor. Moreover, the Patent Office has a well-oiled process to make that determination. The real goal of this change is to take away what is known as the “grace period” – the one year prior to filing a patent application that inventors can use to reveal their secrets to potential investors and partners without worrying about their disclosures making their creation a “prior art” that is ineligible for a patent. This exists no where else and gives American inventors an advantage in their home country. After stripping away this provision with a globalized patent award standard, the Big Tech companies will then ask that patents granted in China, India, Japan and elsewhere automatically be adopted in the U.S., allowing them to accelerate their movement of R&D offshore. Indeed, this patent bill would do for the outsourcing of R&D jobs what NAFTA did for the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. The bill would also create a new European-style post-grant challenge process to invalidate a patent. In Europe, competitors use this process to tie up new technology in long, expensive administrative law reviews. In effect, Intel and its corporate allies have climbed the economic ladder and reached success, but now it is trying to kick over the ladder for others. Without question, the U.S. Patent Office is in trouble . A third of its 6,000 examiners must work at home because the Agency lacks enough office space. The computers are so antiquated that many parts must be found on eBay because they are no longer produced. The turnover rate of employees is more than 30 percent annually. The backlog of applications is more than 700,000 and the Agency will receive more than 500,000 new ones this year. To make matters worse, the Agency relies on fees paid by patent owners for its revenues, but over the past decade Congress has diverted more than $800 million of those to the Treasury. If President Obama and the Congress want to create more dynamic companies such as Intel, then they must recognize that Intel’s advice on patents is short-sighted. The patent legislation that Intel, IBM and the other Big Tech corporations support will do nothing to cure the problems faced by the Patent Office. The smartest move that the President and Congress can do now towards “Winning the Future” is to (1) enact legislation that will stop the diversion of patent funds to the Treasury, (2) return to the Patent Office the $810 million that has been taken away, (3) reject the bill that Big Tech supports (S. 23), and (4) have Congress hold hearings on what really needs to be done so that constructive legislation can be introduced in early 2012.

Read the full article →

Joe Jackson Invests In Vietnam ‘Happyland’ Park

February 14, 2011

HANOI, Vietnam — Joe Jackson, father of late king of pop Michael Jackson, was in Vietnam to attend Monday’s groundbreaking ceremony for a five-star hotel and amusement park called “Happyland.” Online newspaper VietnamNet said Jackson, 82, was at the groundbreaking as one of the investors in the $2 billion, five-star 1,000-room hotel and amusement park in southern Long An province, located about 20 minutes outside Ho Chi Minh City. It is scheduled to be finished in 2014, and is designed to attract up to 14 million visitors annually. “I like discovering different cultures in the world,” VietnamNet quoted Jackson as saying. “I like this project the most because it is located in a beautiful cultural and natural space.” Vietnam has promoted the project – which includes a water park, theaters and restaurants – as the region’s largest entertainment complex. Pop icon Michael Jackson, 50, died in 2009 from an overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol and other sedatives. His doctor has pleaded not guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter. Michael Jackson was known for his creation of Neverland Ranch, a huge complex complete with an amusement park, in California where he lived.

Read the full article →

Elizabeth Warren: Pricing Needs To Be Clearer

January 31, 2011

WASHINGTON — No tricks. Less fine print. Clearer agreements. That’s how banks should market products to consumers, says Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor in charge of setting up a new federal agency that will police credit cards, mortgages and other financial services. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created as part of the sweeping overhaul of financial regulations last year known as the Dodd-Frank Act. Proponents said such an agency could have sounded an early warning for the abusive lending practices that precipitated the economic meltdown. It’s not clear when a permanent head will be named to lead the new agency. Warren, a vocal consumer advocate who first championed the creation of the agency, is a possibility but is regarded as a contentious choice. President Obama did not need Senate confirmation when he named her in September as a special adviser to help oversee the creation of the agency. The CFPB won’t be able to exercise its rule-making powers until July 21. In the meantime, Warren has been making key appointments and meeting with banking executives and consumer groups to get the agency up and running. In an interview with The Associated Press, Warren said one of the first goals will be to make the true cost of financial products easier to understand. She said that should eventually drive down prices for consumers. Here is an excerpt: ___ Q: You’ve said improving the disclosure of credit card terms is going to be a top priority. How is the CFPB going to change what’s provided to consumers? A: Think about how long a credit card agreement has become – it’s become pages and pages and pages of largely incomprehensible fine print. In effect, it’s paperwork that says “Don’t read me,” and that’s a real problem. Because hiding in that fine print can be anything. So one of the things we want to push toward is trying to clear out that kind of shrubbery. So that if there are real changes that a company is proposing, they stand out. They’re not camouflaged by all those other words. Q: And what’s the timetable for when consumers can expect to see such changes? A: Well, it’s interesting. I think people are starting to see somewhat clearer disclosures. For example, there are a couple of major credit card issuers who – following our early conversations last fall – went back and voluntarily rewrote their own credit agreements and began to shrink them down. There have been others who’ve advertised their credit products along the lines of “No Tricks,” “Less Fine Print,” “Clearer Agreements.” This agency, even before it has its full legal authority, has driven a conversation and driven a direction for the industry. And it’s toward a better informed customer who can make apples-to-apples comparisons among products. Q: In terms of the required disclosures – do you see new forms replacing the Schumer box, which is already intended to clearly lay out the APR, fees and other terms for a credit card? A: We’re having conversations with credit card issuers right now and talking through what the Schumer box does and how it might be improved. You know, even the Schumer box has gone from smaller and skinnier to longer and more complicated. So I will readily admit it’s an uphill walk to try to get there. But I think we’re developing a path in working with the companies. In terms of a timetable, I just have to remind you. We won’t have legal authority to do anything by way of rule-making authority until after July 21. But we’ve started now with the industry and with consumer groups and with other stakeholders, investors – talking with them, showing them what we have in mind, asking for their input, asking for their data, asking for information. Q: More banks began to cut back on free checking last year in response to new regulations. Do you think further regulation by the CFPB will drive up the price of banking? A: If the consumer knows the price of a good, the risk associated with it, and can make apples-to-apples comparisons, that’s what makes markets work for consumers. They can figure out who’s offering the most expensive product and who’s offering the cheapest product. And I’m of the belief that over time, that’s going to make financial products cheaper for consumers, not more expensive. Q: Online banking is top-of-mind right now. With so many new mobile and online banking options, is the CFPB dedicating a team to ensure these options are safe? A: We’ve organized the new consumer agency to be market facing. That means that we have divisions dealing with (1) revolving debt and credit cards, (2) mortgages and installment loans, like student loans (3) with payments and deposits and (4) credit reporting and (5) debt collection. We want to be a very data driven agency around those five markets. Technology and innovation is hitting all of them. And so a big part of what we’re doing is hiring people who are technology savvy and actually deeply interested in it. Q: Another area the CFPB will be reviewing is services for people who don’t have a bank account. How do you regulate services like payday loans and still ensure people have access to small loans? A: Well you know, access to small dollar loans is critical to many families. The notion that we somehow try to eliminate that, it’s just not going to happen. It can force people into unregulated markets, including “Jimmy the Leg Breaker,” which is not where we want people to be. So it is important from a regulatory standpoint that people are not at the mercy of lenders who build business models around fooling people. They’re drawn in the front door thinking they’re going to pay one price and then beat about the head and ears, financially speaking, so that they’re paying much, much more. On the other hand, there’s a real problem. And that is how to get good, small dollar lending started in areas where there’s great need. Sometimes that’s going to be by community banks. Sometimes it’s going to be by non-bank lenders and sometimes it’s going to be innovations and new technology that’s going to open up markets for the currently underserved population. I anticipate a lot of change in this area. Q: Is the idea to bring the unbanked population into the traditional banking world? Or is there a valid place for services like check cashing? A: I think the traditional banking world concept is going to change over the next 10 years. I think technology changes it and I think the needs of an unmet population (change it). I’m going to take a little bit of a side step from the question. The basic paradigm in which we’ve thought about this is actually starting to break apart.

Read the full article →

Ari Herzog: How Necessary is a Social Media Plan?

January 20, 2011

Gabrielle Medecki, marketing director for Wolfgang’s Vault (a kick-ass 9-year-old music website if you’ve never visited) questions whether the creation and guidance of a social media plan is a sound business decision. In an interview with Marketing Vox , she reminds us that social media is about living in the moment and how anything can go viral at any time. Conversations are formed when “everyone is talking about” a product, a service, a company. She suggests the unpredictability of social media may endanger your plan for online behavior. You should obviously have a plan — but how necessary is it for the plan to be all inclusive? Look to Microsoft for guidance. Their policy for social media is simple: “Be smart.”

Read the full article →

VitaminSpice Adds Mr. Robert Wilke as Chief Marketing Officer

January 13, 2011

WAYNE, PA–(Marketwire – January 13, 2011) – VitaminSpice ( OTCBB : VTMS ) (German WKN: A0YE4L) ( www.vitaminspice.net ) is pleased to announce that Robert Wilke will be joining VitaminSpice in the capacity of Chief Marketing Officer. Mr. Wilke has led in the creation of effective marketing programs for such blue chip companies as J.P. Morgan/Chase, Citibank, National Car Rental, the Bermuda Department of Tourism, Verizon, Guinness, and many others.

Read the full article →

Smart Card Alliance Identity Council Announces New Officers, Plans for Educational Resources on Trusted Identities

December 22, 2010

PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ–(Marketwire – December 22, 2010) – Guiding the creation of strong identity management foundations for citizen and government identity programs is the focus for the coming year, the Smart Card Alliance Identity Council said recently. The Identity Council also announced new officers and a steering committee, and recently held a workshop on the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Interoperable (PIV-I) card at its 9th Annual Smart Cards in Government: Identity, Security & Healthcare Conference in November in Washington D.C. 

Read the full article →

Obama: Reforms, Economy Are ‘Moving In The Right Direction’

September 20, 2010

In a town hall discussion broadcast live on CNBC Monday, President Barack Obama said the country’s economy is “moving in the right direction” — even if it doesn’t feel that way. Responding to questions from, in addition to the host John Harwood, a student, a Wall Streeter, a small business-owner and a self-described member of the middle class, the president acknowledged that “times are tough for everybody,” but pointed to his record so far as president and asked the audience to trust in his agenda. “We went through the worst recession since the Great Depression,” he said. “Those programs that we put in place worked. So now you’ve got a financial system that is stable. …The challenge is that the hole was so deep.” The tough questions came near the beginning. The chief financial officer for a veterans service organization, who called herself a “middle-class American,” said she was “exhausted of defending you” and “deeply disappointed with where we are right now.” “The life you describe, one of responsibility, looking after your family, contributing to your community, that’s what we want to reward,” Obama said in response. “I understand your frustration.” He proceeded to list his administration’s reforms on student loans, credit cards and “a whole host of things that we’ve put in place that do make your life better.” The president deflected criticism from Wall Street as well. He pushed back against the assertion that he has vilified business, saying the angry response to his reforms has been irrational. His citing of historical examples, such as the creation of Medicare, recalled that passage from a 1933 Time article he read in a speech in April — “Through the great banking houses of Manhattan last week ran wild-eyed alarm. Big bankers stared at one another in anger and astonishment…” — which refers to the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. When SkyBridge Capital manager Anthony Scaramucci told Obama, in a question, that Wall Street feels like a “pinata,” the president said, to applause, “There’s a big chunk of the country that thinks that I have been too soft on Wall Street.” WATCH Obama respond to accusations that he’s been too tough on Wall Street: “Me saying you should be taxed more like your secretary, when you’re pulling home a billion dollars or a hundred million dollars a year, I don’t think is me being extremist or anti-business.” Throughout the speech, Obama insisted he was allied with businesses of all sizes. In response to a question from a small business owner who does monogram glass work, Obama pointed to the “eight tax cuts for small businesses so far” that his administration has passed, calling them “pro-business agendas.” He admitted, further, that his own political approach to this legislation hasn’t always been ideal, saying that he will be “setting a better tone so that everybody feels like we can start cooperating again, instead of going at loggerheads all the time.” The president’s argument, ultimately, was that reforms need to continue. Regarding housing, Obama countered the argument that allowing the market to fall naturally would help it more than continuing to prop it up. “We were very successful in keeping the housing market alive at a time when it had completely shut down,” he said. “My job as president is to think about those families that are losing their homes, not as some abstract numbers. I mean, these are real people.” He also touched on the possibility of a payroll tax holiday (“This is something that we’ve examined”) and on China’s capital restrictions. “What we’ve said to them is you need to let your currency rise,” he said about China. “We are going to continue to insist that, on this issue and on all trade issues between us and China, it’s a two-way street.”

Read the full article →

How The Financial Reform Bill Affects Your Everyday Life (PHOTOS)

June 26, 2010

NEW YORK (By Rachel Beck, AP) – The financial overhaul is about more than exotic derivatives and complex risk assessments. It will change how you interact with the financial system every day, from swiping your debit card at the store to applying for a mortgage. That includes new rules governing how we bank, borrow and invest, plus the creation of a new regulator to make sure financial transactions like signing up for a credit card are safer and easier to understand. The legislation does not go as far as some would have liked. Auto dealers, who make most car loans, won’t face oversight by the new consumer bureau. Nor will banks with less than $10 billion in assets, even though they serve most communities in this country. Here’s a piece-by-piece guide to the new rules.

Read the full article →

Medvedev Shows Off Sample Coin of New &lsquoWorld Currency&rsquo at G-8

June 19, 2010

By Lyubov Pronina July 10 (Bloomberg) — Russian President Dmitry Medvedev illustrated his call for a supranational currency to replace the dollar by pulling from his pocket a sample coin of a “united future world currency.” “Here it is,” Medvedev told reporters today in L’Aquila, Italy, after a summit of the Group of Eight nations. “You can see it and touch it.” The coin , which bears the words “unity in diversity,” was minted in Belgium and presented to the heads of G-8 delegations, Medvedev said. The question of a supranational currency “concerns everyone now, even the mints,” Medvedev said. The test coin “means they’re getting ready. I think it’s a good sign that we understand how interdependent we are.” Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the U.S. dollar’s future as a global reserve currency. Russia’s proposals for the G-20 meeting in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency. To contact the reporter on this story: Lyubov Pronina in L’Aquila, Italy at lpronina@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Force Fuels Announces First Members of the Oil Advisory Council

June 17, 2010

NEWPORT BEACH, CA–(Marketwire – June 17, 2010) –  Force Fuels, Inc. ( OTCBB : FOFU ) today announced the creation of the Company’s Oil Advisory Council and the appointment of its first members.

Read the full article →

Marty Robins: Oil Spill Compensation — Not So Fast: It’s Not Just BP at Risk!

June 16, 2010

The proliferation of headlines pertaining to various demands from all levels of government on BP for payment of various costs resulting from the Gulf oil spill – e.g. lost sales and state income tax revenue and salaries for laid off oil service workers, and perhaps lost revenues for tourism dependent firms – has major implications for our economy and legal system. It is certainly viscerally appealing for all concerned to hold out their hands to BP, which has almost certainly done something giving rise to civil liability. At the least, everyone, even BP, agrees that it is liable for direct clean up costs. It is also making voluntary payments to many impacted persons. However, the efforts which are being pursued at the federal and state levels are at best superfluous, and at worst, seriously detrimental to the economy. There already exists an elaborate body of tort (and perhaps contract) law governing the liability of one who has wrongfully caused harm to another. In general, this body of law limits recoverable damages to what should have reasonably been foreseeable to the wrongdoer at the time of their wrongful act. Those with legal training will recognize and recall the infamous Palsgraf case involving a chain reaction of events on a train – premature movement, people falling, fireworks erupting, objects falling, etc. – which guides us today, and makes clear that the rule of damages which is applied in tort law is not a simple ‘but for” standard, but one which limits damages to a much greater extent by defining a “zone of exposure.” A moment’s reflection indicates that doing otherwise would inhibit economic activity by exposing actors in all fields to vast and unpredictable claims – out of proportion to potential benefits – if anything were to go wrong. While far from perfect, this system has served us reasonably well as our economy has developed. Adding to the din are administration demands for the creation of an escrow fund to pay for claims against BP. We already have ample mechanisms for those who feel that they are aggrieved by BP to pursue such claims, and for courts to order the creation of security for claims ultimately found to be valid, if they feel that the defendant may not be able to satisfy such claims at that time. Many such claims – individual and class – are already pending. If claims which are currently being made are covered by existing law, the new initiatives are unnecessary. If they are not already covered, and I think many of them, such as claims for lost tax revenue, are not, cooler heads need to seriously consider the macroeconomic effect of the proposed legal changes. It is also essential to look at the constitutionality of the proposed efforts, as many of those which involve forcing BP to make payments without adjudication of liability involve Fifth Amendment Due Process issues. Whatever the legalities, the last thing we should be doing now is discouraging business activity. Yet, if we expand exposure where a venture – in the oil industry or elsewhere – encounters problems, we will, by definition, discourage the formation, continuation or investment in such ventures, by decreasing the expected return. This will reduce employment. Policy makers need to seek a delicate balance between holding businesses responsible for the damage they genuinely cause and holding them responsible for everything remotely attributable to them. This is why we have a foreseeability standard. Telling BP that it must make up for sales and income tax revenue which it is not paying because of its focus on clean up activity, seems appealing, but tells other firms, large and small, that even if they do not perform well, for whatever reason, they may be called upon to bolster a government fisc as if they had done so. Nothing would limit such demands to situations where the poor performance results from an environmental disaster. Similarly, requiring payments of lost wages and profits to those in the area following an environmental incident may be just a precursor to such a requirement following a strike, material shortage, fire or natural disaster. It is also an open invitation to fraud, as it will be difficult to determine who would have been fired or laid off or gone out of business in any case, and who would have done well absent the events complained of. While it is unclear whether any pending “suggestions” such as the escrow fund involve resolving claims outside the legal process, if this is the case, the potential for fraud grows exponentially. Many people lose a good deal of money from the innocent and wrongful actions of other private actors, but as a society, we can not and do not seek to provide an all encompassing safety net through the private sector. The current experience of Europe, which has sought to do so, and undermined its economy to a greater extent than the US, as indicated by the growing sovereign default fears, should be instructive. Many understandably see the $75 million cap on economic damages – not clean up costs – from oil spills which is contained in current federal law as the triumph of Big Oil and its lobbyists. This may be true, but it is also an important balancing mechanism between risk and reward which encourages the development and preservation of oil production which is critical to meeting our energy and employment needs. Perhaps such a cap should be raised or the definition of recoverable items broadened in light of today’s circumstances, but it should not be eliminated to allow open ended recoveries of all conceivable losses. It may be hard to believe in light of the catastrophic losses from the current oil spill, but there is considerably more at stake for our economy than for the Gulf Coast region. Treating BP as a guarantor of all Gulf Coast losses simply because this may be financially possible, will make clear to the rest of the business world that they may be next when it is politically expedient and will inhibit efforts to reduce unemployment. Our policy makers need to heed not only the sound of the mob clamoring for “justice,” and “fairness,” but also the more muted sound of reason.

Read the full article →

Mundell Says Debt Restructuring Is `Inevitable’ for Some Countries in Euro

May 26, 2010

By Piotr Skolimowski May 26 (Bloomberg) — Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell said debt restructuring may be “inevitable” for one or two countries that share Europe’s common currency in the next five years. “Debt restructuring may be needed for one or two fiscally weak euro members,” he said today at a conference in Warsaw. “In five years it may be inevitable, but it doesn’t mean euro deconstruction, it just means debt restructuring.” Europe needs great fiscal centralization, including the creation of euro-area Treasury notes and bonds, Mundell said. “The euro has done marvelously well in its 10 years of existence, but it is operating with one of its two hands tied behind its back,” he said. “There is no area bill like a U.S. Treasury bill. A euro-area bill will greatly improve the ascent of the euro as the reserve currency along the dollar.” Mundell, 77, won the Nobel in economics in 1999, the year the euro was introduced, for his work on exchange rates and capital mobility. He is known as the founder of the theory of optimum currency areas and played a “significant role” in the founding of the euro, according to the website of New York’s Columbia University, where he is an economics professor. To contact the reporter on this story: Piotr Skolimowski in Warsaw at pskolimowski@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

Lawmakers Call For MortgagePurchase Agency

March 27, 2010

A bipartisan group of members of House of Representatives is calling for the creation of an agency that will buy mortgages instead of relying on servicers to modify them voluntarily reports The Hill

Read the full article →

Video: Fertel Expects 45 New Nuclear Plants in U.S. by 2030: Video

March 18, 2010

March 18 (Bloomberg) — Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, talks with Bloomberg’s Mark Crumpton and Julie Hyman about the development of nuclear energy in the U.S. Fertel also discusses the outlook for new nuclear plants and the creation of employment through their construction. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Thom Hartmann: Globalization Is Killing The Globe: Return to Local Economies

February 8, 2010

Globalization is killing Europe, just as it’s already wiped out much of the American middle class. Spain and Greece are facing immediate crises that many other European nations see on the near horizon: aging boomer workers are retiring with healthy benefit packages, but the younger workers who are paying for those benefits aren’t making anything close to the income (or, therefore, paying the taxes) that their parents did. Globalists/corporatists/conservative “free market” and “flat earth” advocates say this is a great opportunity to cut benefits for the old folks (and for the young folks in the future), thus bringing the countries budgets back into balance, and this story is the main corporate media storyline. But it overlooks the real issue (and the real solution): how globalization is killing these nations’ economies and what can be done about it. From the days of Adam Smith, classical economics pointed out that manufacturing and extraction are the only two ways to “create wealth.” “Wealth” is different from “income.” Wealth is value, which endures at least for some time. Income is simply compensation for work. If you wash my car for $10 and I mow your lawn for $10, we have a GDP of $20 and it looks like we both have income and economic activity. But no wealth has been created, just income. On the other hand, if I build your car, I’m creating something of value. And if you turn my lawn into a small farm that produces food we can all eat, you’re creating something of value. Not only do we have an “economy” with a “GDP,” we also have created wealth. A stick on the ground has no commercial value, but if you add labor to it by carving it into an axe handle — a thing of commercial value — you have “created wealth.” Similarly, metals in the ground have no commercial value, but when you add labor to them by extracting, refining, and forming them into products, you “create wealth.” Even turning seeds and dirt and cows into hamburgers is a form of manufacturing and creates wealth. This is the “Wealth of Nations” that titled Adam Smith’s famous 1776 book. On the other hand, when a trader at Goldman Sachs makes a “profit” trading stocks, bonds, or currencies, no wealth whatsoever is created. In fact, to the extent that that trader takes millions in commissions, pay, and bonuses, he’s actually depleting the wealth of the nation (particularly to the extent that he moves his money offshore to save or invest, as many do). To use the United States as an example, in the late 1940s and early 1950s manufacturing accounted for a high of 28 percent of our total gross domestic product (and much of the rest of the economy like agriculture that, in a classical sense is “manufacturing” wasn’t even included in those numbers), and when Reagan came into office it was at a strong 20 percent. Today it’s about ten percent of our GDP. What this means is that we’re creating less wealth here, because we’re not making much anymore. (And the biggest growth in American manufacturing has been in the military sector, where goods are made that are then destroyed when they explode over foreign cities, causing even more of our wealth to vanish.) The main effect of the globalism fad of the past 30 yearrs — lowering the protective barriers to trade that countries for centuries have used to make sure their own local economies are self-sufficient — has been to ship manufacturing (the creation of wealth) from developed nations to developing nations. Transnational corporations love this, because in countries with lower labor costs and few environmental and safety regulations, it’s more profitable to manufacture products. They then sell those products in the “mature” countries — the places that used to manufacture — and people burn through the wealth they’d accumulated in the earlier manufacturing days (home equity, principally, along with savings and lines of credit) to buy these foreign-manufactured goods. At first, it looks like a good deal to consumers in developed nations. Goods are cheaper! But over a decade or two or three, as the creation of real wealth is reduced and the residue of the old wealth is spent, the developed nations become progressively poorer and poorer. At the same time, the “developing” nations become wealthier — because those are the places that are producing real wealth. Which brings us to Spain and Greece — and the problem of all developed nations including the USA. So long as globalism continues apace, the transnational corporations and their CEOs will continue to become fabulously wealthy. But, more importantly, they also acquire the political power that comes with that control of economies. So they tell us that instead of putting back into place tariffs, domestic content laws, and other “protectionist” policies that built America from the time the were first proposed by Alexander Hamilton in 1791 (and largely adopted by Congress in 1793) until they were dismantled by Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush, we should instead simple “accept the reality” that we’re “living beyond our means” and we have to “cut back our wages and social programs.” In other words, they get richer, our nations become poorer, and national sovereignty is reduced. Nations — and in large countries like the USA, even states — must again rebuild their manufacturing base and become locally self-sufficient, so their own consumers are buying products manufactured by their own workers. “But won’t that make Wal-Mart’s stuff more expensive?” whine the flat-earthers. Yes, it will. But most Americans (and Greeks and Spaniards) would gladly pay 10 percent more for the goods in their stores if their paychecks were 20 percent higher. And manufacturing paychecks have always been higher, because manufacturing is where “true wealth” is generated (thus the basis for most union movements, which further guarantee healthy worker income and benefits). The transnational corporations benefiting from globalization are also, in most cases, the transnational corporations that own our media, so even the word globalization is rarely heard in reports on economic crises around the world. But globalization is the villain here, and one that needs to be taken in hand and brought under control quickly if we don’t want to see virtually the nations of the world end up subservient to corporate control, a new form of an ancient economic system known as feudalism.

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: God Created Salespeople

January 8, 2010

Salespeople are as vital to the survival of the economy and industry as food, water and oxygen is to the body! Sales people are critical to the success of new discoveries and progress of the world. An idea or movement,no matter how great, still requires a salesperson. Nothing happens until someone sells something to someone else. God had to create salespeople because for anything good to happen someone has to sell another on that idea or it would never happen! God created salespeople because he knew nothing would happen without them. God created salespeople because they are essential to the creation and continuation of industries and economies. God created salespeople to bring people, villages and communities together. God created salespeople as a way to get goods, ideas and services exchanged. God created salespeople so man could perfect the skills of communication, persistence, follow through and belief in himself. God created salespeople to teach man the importance of a great attitude. God created salespeople as a way to ensure change, improvement, and progress in the world. God created sales people because he was certain the Devil would have his own team. Grant Cardone, Author and Founder of Sales Training Virtual Technology

Read the full article →

Firms Launch Microsoft Excel CMBS Analytics Tool

November 16, 2009

A pair of securitization services companies collaborated on the creation of a tool for commercial real estate investors that utilizes Microsoft (MSFT: 29.54 -0.30%) Excel spreadsheets to analyze a variety of real estate performance metrics. Rockport

Read the full article →

State Regulators: Dodd’s Bank Bill Creates Another ‘Too Big To Fail’ Problem

November 11, 2009

State bank regulators are warning that Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s proposal to create one monolithic federal bank regulator would increase risks to the system and would favor precisely the gigantic banks whose conduct most needs to be reined in. “The unintended consequences of such a proposal will likely create a too-big-to-fail regulatory agency that reinforces a too-big-to-fail industry,” Neil Milner, president and C.E.O. of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, said in a statement. “The federal government policies and actions of the past 18 months have already produced a more consolidated industry — with a handful of ‘haves’ benefiting from explicit and implicit federal backing and with the rest of the banking industry relegated to ‘have not’ status,” the group wrote in a Monday letter to Dodd obtained by the Huffington Post. “Excessive regulatory consolidation will only perpetuate this dichotomy by subjecting the nation’s over 8,000 banks…to a regulatory regime designed to accommodate the needs and business priorities of handful of the nation’s largest and most politically prominent institutions.” Dodd argues, in a summary of his 1,136-page bill , that having a single agency “eliminates the convoluted system of multiple federal bank regulators to increase accountability and end unnecessary overlap, conflicting regulation, and ‘charter shopping,’” which refers to banks shopping around for the most lenient regulator. But the state regulators insist: “It would be dangerous to place all regulatory authority under one agency, which would remove critical layers of financial supervision. A single federal regulator, contrary to improving regulatory accountability, would increase the likelihood of regulatory capture by eliminating checks and balances.” “Regulatory capture” refers to instances in which agencies created to serve the public interest through regulation instead end up working for the benefit of those they’re supposed to be overseeing. “It is no coincidence that the nation’s largest banks support regulatory consolidation, while the community and regional banks oppose your proposal. The mega-banks support the creation of a monolithic regulator because they fully expect to enjoy greater access and greater influence if such an agency is created,” the regulators wrote. They also argued that the creation of such an agency would punish small banks, which did not cause the crisis. “Smaller institutions, the very banks that prevented a complete collapse of our economy, would be further disadvantaged, to the point where we would eventually be left with an industry consisting of nothing more than a handful of mega banks,” the regulators wrote. Small banks “kept credit flowing in our economy and throughout the country, even as our largest institutions all but ceased lending to preserve the capital necessary to survive the collapse of the capital markets.” Indeed, a Huffington Post review of banking data shows that banks with more than $10 billion in assets have cut the amount of loans they carry on their balance sheets by a combined $343 billion, or six percent, since last year. Given the recession, a downturn in lending was expected. But smaller banks only cut their loans by one percent. “To reward the legions of community and regional banks that kept our economy afloat in our darkest days with a regulatory regime that would at best ignore their needs, and at worst, seek to merge them out of existence altogether, would…unjustly punish those very institutions that sustained our nation,” the state regulators wrote. Banks can currently pick their own federal regulator, and can choose whether to have a state charter or a federal one. Under Dodd’s proposal, banks could still choose between the one federal regulator or a combination of state and federal regulation. The state regulators fear, however, that the plan could have the practical effect of killing the dual system down the line as banks find it more attractive to simply have one regulator. READ the letter BELOW CSBS Letter to Dodd –

Read the full article →

Video: Levchin Says Slide Will Be Profitable `Pretty Soon’: Video

October 29, 2009

Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) — Max Levchin, co-founder of PayPal and currently chief executive officer of Slide Inc., talks with Bloomberg’s Julie Hyman and Mark Crumpton about the creation and sale of “virtual” goods and the outlook for Slide’s profitability. Slide sells services on Facebook Inc. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Sheldon Filger: The Best and Worst Economic Forecasts of All Time

October 16, 2009

History is littered with flawed forecasts on economic trends. And where some have proven to have been surprisingly accurate in their glimpse into the financial and economic future, these projections have usually been scorned, until too late. Our current global economic crisis is a case in point. Nouriel Roubini, the famed NYU economics professor, warned about the impending meltdown of the financial system and collapse of several prominent investment banks, all based on the asset bubble in residential housing and the vulnerability of subprime mortgage securitization. In response to his perceptive warning, he was mocked as “Dr. Doom.” However, no one mocks Professor Roubini anymore. In looking at the broad sweep of history, there are many excellent examples of disastrous economic forecasting. On the other side of the ledger, the number of prescient glimpses into the economic future are relatively few. Among this small, select group, however, there is one gem that conspicuously stands out. In my view, the most accurate long-term economic forecast of all time was provided by the legendary Renaissance French seer, Nostradamus, usually more renowned for his prophecies on the end of the world. In 1548 Nostradamus predicted, “From Albion’s shore shall come a marvelous contrivance: a carriage of silence bearing the arms of Rolles de Roi.” Apparently, Nostradamus saw the creation of the Rolls Royce motor car in England, and its reputation for silent and prestigious personal transportation, more than three centuries before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Placed in a broader context, this clairvoyant perceived the creation of a massive new industry, automobile manufacturing, and the important future role of brand marketing in economics . Whether this forecast was based on research, intuition, a lucky guess or some inexplicable power of prophecy is unknown to me. Irrespective of his methodology, Nostradamus hit one out of the ballpark with this forecast. In contrast with Nostradamus, perhaps the most inaccurate and inept economic forecast of all time was delivered relatively recently, by the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. In October 2005 The Washington Post carried the following headline: “Bernanke: There’s No Housing Bubble to Go Bust.” Yes indeed, Ben Bernanke, who had recently been nominated to succeed Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Fed, presented a confident prediction to Congress that the unprecedented rise in U.S. home prices did not constitute an asset bubble, and was based on sound economic fundamentals. The rest is history-and infamy. One would think that the same Chairman of the Federal Reserve who arguably delivered history’s most inept and erroneous economic forecast could never be reappointed as Fed boss by President Barack Obama, not in a million years. Guess again.

Read the full article →

Weaver Named EVP of Atlantic Records

September 30, 2009

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwire – September 30, 2009) – Kevin Weaver has been promoted to Executive Vice President of the Atlantic Records Group, it was announced by Atlantic Records Group Chairman/CEO Craig Kallman and Chairman/COO Julie Greenwald. The Los Angeles-based Weaver, who began his music career with Atlantic in 1994, was most recently Senior Vice President of the company. In his post, Weaver oversees the creation and placement of Atlantic-affiliated music and artists across all visual media — including film, television, and video games — as well as being responsible for developing and overseeing soundtrack projects, strategic alliances, licensing opportunities, and marketing initiatives. In this role, he works closely with film and TV studios as well as production companies.

Read the full article →

Video: Larger Banks To Pay More For Regulation

August 14, 2009

The White House wants banks with over $10 billion in assets to pay more for the creation of an agency to protect consumers from banks. (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →

FRB: Press Release–Federal Reserve announces the creation of the …

November 25, 2008

The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday announced the creation of the Term Asset – Backed Securities Loan Facility ( TALF ), a facility that will help market participants meet the credit needs of households and small businesses by supporting …

Read the full article →